Before the District Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Monday the 31st day of January, 2005
C.D.No. 95/2004
Rakop Eswaraiah,
S/o. Late Nagaraju,
H.No. 64/76, Fort,
Kurnool. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
The Divisional Engineer,
A.P. Transco, Near Women s College,
Railway Station Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party represented by his
Counsel Sri D.Sreenivasulu Advocate.
O R D E R
(As per Smt C.Preethi, Hon ble Lady Member)
1. This CD complaint of the complainant is filed under section 12 of C.P. Act, 1986, seeking a direction on the opposite party to connect the service connection, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/-, generator expenses and any other reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant s case is that the complainant is a practicing advocate at Kunool Bar, on 12.8.2004 paid Rs 130 including fine for the current bill No. 01401 1191/ERO/Kurnool through E-Seva at Old Bus stand, Kurnool, to the opposite party by that time service connection has been continuing. On 19.8.2004 at about 11.30 A.M the opposite party disconnected the service connection of the complainant and the complainant got issued lawyers notice dt: 20.8.2004 for reconnection of his service connection.
3. The complainant further submits that due to the said disconnection the complainant felt shame before his neighbours and clients and suffered mental agony. The complainant has brought a generator on rent basis for Rs.500/- per day including oil. The above said lapsive conduct of the opposite party constrained the complainant to seek relief in this Forum.
4. The complainant in support of his case filed the following documents Viz (1) receipt dt 12.8.2004 for Rs.130/- issued by E. Seva (2) lawyers notice dt 20.8.2004 issued by complainant s Advocate to the Divisional Engineer, C.P.D, Kurnool (3) courier receipt dt 20.8.2004 along with acknowledgement of opposite party and (4) bill dt 20.8.2004 issued by Sri Siva Sai Suppliers, Kurnool for Rs.4,500/- and above documents marked as Ex A.1 to A.4 for its appreciation in this case. The complainant also relied on the third party sworn affidavit of T.Nageswaramma, suitable replied to the interrogatories filed by the opposite party and caused interrogatories to the opposite party. The third party also suitablely replied to the interrogatories filed by the opposite party.
5. In pursuance to the notice of this Forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filing denial of written version alleging the complaint is neither maintainable neither in law nor on facts.
6. The written version of opposite party admits the complainant paid bill on 12.8.2004, it also admits the complainant s service was disconnected at the Arial on 19.8.2004 for non-payment of regular CC. charges and the complainant was not in town on the date of disconnection. The complainant on 30.8.2004 approached A.E. Power House in the evening and showed the receipt issued by E-seva office and supply was restored on 31.8.2004. Even after restoration the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum to drag the opposite party into this vexations litigation and further denies the receipt of lawyers notice of the complainant.
7. The opposite party in support of its written version filed the following documents Viz (1) attested true copy of meter reading register dt 31.8.2004, besides to its sworn affidavit in reiteration of its written version as defence and the above document is marked as Ex B.1 for its appreciation in this case. The opposite party caused interrogatories to the complainant and third party and suitablely replied to the interrogatories field by the complainant.
8. Hence the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is remaining entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite party?:-
9. It is a categorical case of the complainant alleging deficiency of service and deficient conduct on opposite party for disconnecting his service connection on 19.8.2004 even after payment of bill amount of Rs.130 on 12.8.2004 at E-seva office. The Ex A.1 is the receipt dt 12.8.2004 for Rs.130/- issued by E-seva Office, it envisages payment of Rs.130/- on 12.8.2004 to the opposite party including reconnection charges. The written version of opposite party in para 2 admits the complainant paid bill amount on 12.8.2004, it also admits in para 7 of the written version that the complainant s service connection was disconnected on 19.8.2004 at Arial.
10. The main contention of the complainant is that even after payment of bill amount on 12.8.2004 the opposite party disconnected his service connection on 19.8.2004, as against to it the opposite party did not made any rebuttal avernment in their written version rebutting the said contention of the complainant. In the absence of any cogent material rebutting the said contentions of the complainant and as it is clear from Ex A.1 that the complainant paid said bill amount on 12.8.2004, hence, the said contention of complainant stands unrebutted and there remains no doubt in accepting said the contention of the complainant. Therefore, what follows is that the service connection of the
complainant was disconnected on 19.8.2004 even after payment of bill amount on 12.8.2004, hence there appears every bonafidies of the complainant in his hesitation on the said grievance and the deficiency of service on part of opposite party in that regard.
11. The Ex A.2 is the legal notice dt 20.8.2004 of the complainant addressed to the opposite party, the same grievances such as payment of bill amount and disconnection of service connection on 19.8.2004 with out informing the complainant and on the same day informed the opposite party about the said disconnection and requested for reconnection and still to day service is not connected, there by allege deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party and claiming Rs.20,000/- as damages.
12. The Ex A.3 is the courier receipt dt 20.8.2004 along with acknowledgement of opposite party No.1 on 21.8.2004 for receipt of lawyers notice Ex A.2. The Ex A.4 is the bill dt 20.8.2004 issued by Sri Siva Sai Supplies, Kurnool, to the complainant for Rs.4,500/- towards daily rent of the Generator from 20.8.2004 to 7.9.2004 at Rs.300/- per day for 15 days totaling Rs.4,500/-. Hence, from the above documents that appears high negligence and carelessness of the opposite party in disconnecting the service connection of the complainant even after payment of bill amount. The opposite party by their carelessness and by their doscile conduct even after receiving the lawyers notice did not bother to reconnect the service connection of the complainant. Hence, there appears every deficiency of service from the opposite party s side towards the complainant right from the day of disconnecting the service connection of the complainant.
13. Hence, in the circumstances discussed above as there is clear deficiency of service of the opposite party in disconnecting the service connection of the complainant on 19.8.2004, even after payment of bill amount by the complainant and even after receipt of lawyers notice dt 20.8.2004 the opposite party failed to reconnect the service connection of the complainant. The complainant is remaining entitled to compensation for the deficient conduct and deficiency of service of the opposite party as the complainant is a consumer and the damages suffered by the complainant is indeminifiable.
14. In this case the complainant prayed for reconnection of service connection, the complainant in his sworn affidavit submitted that service connection was reconnected on 7.9.2004. But the opposite party brought on record Ex B.1 attested true copy of meter reading register dt 31.8.2004, where in it is mentioned that the complainants service connection was reconnected on 31.8.2004, therefore, the said prayer cannot be ordered.
15. In the present case, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and expenses of Generator. The Ex A.4 is bill dt 20.8.2004 towards rent of generator for 15 days at Rs.4,500/-. The opposite party filed Ex B.1 stating that the restoration of service connection to the complainant service was provided on 31.8.2004, hence the complainant is entitled to Generator expenses from 20.8.2004 to 31.8.2004.
16. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to pay to the
complainant Generator expenses from 20.8.2004 to 31.8.2004 i.e for 12 days Rs.300/- per day totaling 12xRs300/- =3,600/-, Rs.1,000/- as compensation for suffered mental
agony at the deficiency of service of opposite party in disconnecting the service
connection of the complainant and Rs.500/- as costs within a month from the date of receipt of this order.
Dictated to the stenographer, Typed to the dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the Open Court this the 31st day of January, 2005.
Sd/-
Sd/- PRESIDENT sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
